Does one have the right to an attorney?

[The Lonely Rationalist]

Does one have the right to an attorney? I've been thinking about this issue recently. It seems like one of the arguments used against those who claim a right to health care apply here: If one has the right to an attorney, does that mean an attorney has no right to refuse representing someone?

It seems, however, that if one does not have a right to an attorney, poor people could not afford representation at a trial, and would be more likely to be convicted of crimes, and that people would be forced to pay for attorneys if the government tried them for a crime, regardless of whether they committed the crime or not.

[necrovore]

The state does not use force to compel attorneys to represent you. The attorneys must volunteer, such as by becoming public defenders, by representing you pro bono, or by accepting payment from you in exchange for their services.

Even a public defender can decline to represent you. There might be a valid reason; for example, if a company accuses you of stealing its property, and the public defender is a shareholder in that company, he might wish to avoid being accused of a conflict of interest. If the public defender declines, then the state has to find you another public defender (or hire you an attorney on the open market), even if this means delaying your trial. The state could also choose to drop the charges. Or, if you don't like the delay, you can choose to waive your right to an attorney.

The reason you have a right to an attorney is so that there is a check against state action. If the state does not accuse you of any crime, you do not have the right to an attorney.

Getting sick or hurt is not (properly speaking) a state action. So there is no need for the state to provide a check against it.

[DavidOdden]

To begin with, one has a right to not be accused of and arrested for tax evasion, drug dealing, or prostitution. So when you ask about one's rights in the context of Objectivism and proper government, the number of possible accusations against you would be much smaller than they are now. In addition, if we were living in a society that was governed by objective law (in Rand's sense), the need for an attorney would be greatly diminished, and the need for a private investigator would be greater (proportionally speaking).

However, if you mean "Given the legal chicanery that takes place in courts, the acts which are deemed to be criminal, and the deconstructionist nonsense that passes for law these days, does the state has the obligation to provide you with an attorney if you cannot afford one", then I think there is a good case to be made that the answer is yes. The purpose of government is to protest the individual's rights against initiation of force, and force-by-prosecution is an examples of the kind of force that the state is supposed to protect individuals against.

This does not mean that any particular attorney can be compelled to act as your counsel; it means that when the state is dispensing tax-stolen resources for the purpose of protecting individual rights against initiation of force, the accused may have an equally (marginally) valid claim on those resources. Obviously, the real solution is to reform the legal system, not to expand what government does.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

I imagine that if the law ever got reduced to its proper scope, there'd be fewer prosecutions--and there might be charitable organizations to provide lawyers for the indigent. assuming lawyers were unwilling to do pro bono work in sufficient numbers.

I don't think anyone has a right to a taxpayer-paid lawyer, even in criminal cases.

[aequalsa]

The purpose of government is to protest the individual's rights

Sure seems to be the case lately, but I wouldn't call it the real purpose. I won't tell Freud.

[softwareNerd]

I agree with David that the provision of a defense attorney to argue against the government is a good procedure, as long as the attorney is not being forced. This is not a right like the right to property. It is closer to the "right" to trial by jury: i.e. it is a specific procedure under law, designed to protect some fundamental right.

Edited January 6, 2010 by softwareNerd

[Robert J. Kolker]

I agree with David that the provision of a defense attorney to argue against the government is a good procedure, as long as the attorney is not being forced. This is not a right like the right to property. It is closer to the "right" to trial by jury: i.e. it is a specific procedure under law, designed to protect some fundamental right.

Jurors are drafted (under threat of fine or imprisonment) to serve on juries. The "right" to a jury trial entails involuntary servitude of potential jurors.

Bob Kolker